Interface and Usability Design

1. Interface and Usability Design Working Group

2. Charge: Plan a redesign of the NWDA researcher site in FY14 • TASK 1 • Plan for site redesign in FY14 after a new infrastructure is implemented. • This will include all aspects of the researcher site (search site, results pages, advanced search, style sheet presentation, linking with digital content). The WG should be prepared to create desired outcomes for users.

3. TASK 2 • The WG should assume that some financial impacts of a site redesign are anticipated and that there are program funds adequate to fund them, but should make costs evident as early as possible.

4. TASK 3 • The group’s work should include looking at previous recommendations, a competitive set analysis, the literature on EAD usability and related general usability topics, and a review of the Program Manager’s list of known issues with the current site. The group should also make use of some substantial part of the annual Committee meeting to communicate with and hear from the program committee members.

5. TASK 4 • The WG should closely coordinate with the Infrastructure Working Group

6. Working Group • Committee Members: • Daniel Davis, Utah State University • Sam Meister, University of Montana • Jeremy Skinner, Lewis and Clark • Rachael Woody, Linfield College • Mary McRobinson, Chair, Willamette University • Alliance Staff: • Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Orbis Cascade Alliance • Keith Folsom, Orbis Cascade Alliance

7. TASK 2 Update: Recommendation re: site redesign and the financial implications • The IUDWG recommends a major site redesign to be implemented incrementally over FY14-FY15. Costs anticipated to be on the high-end of the estimate as provided by Keith Folsom (e.g., nearer the $30,000 estimate). 

8. Recommendations compiled intoSpecs Draft were informed by: • User persona (from WAN) • Extensive literature survey • User studies • Steering Team Calls

9. Survey Results22 Respondents Very Supportive – 13 Supportive – 6 Neutral – 3 Not Supportive – 0 Opposed – 0

10. Survey Results – 23 Respondents Very Supportive – 12 Supportive – 8 Neutral – 1 Not Supportive – 2 Opposed - 0

11. Survey Results – 23 Respondents Very Supportive – 18 Supportive – 5 Neutral – 0 Not Supportive – 0 Opposed - 0

12. Survey Results – 23 Respondents Very Supportive – 10 Supportive – 10 Neutral – 3 Not Supportive – 0 Opposed - 0

13. Survey Results23 Respondents Very Supportive – 21 Supportive – 2 Neutral – 0 Not Supportive – 0 Opposed – 0

14. Survey Results22 Respondents Very Supportive – 15 Supportive – 5 Neutral – 1 Not Supportive – 1 Opposed - 0

15. Survey Results22 Respondents Very Supportive – 12 Supportive – 9 Neutral – 1 Not Supportive – 0 Opposed - 0

16. Survey Results22 Respondents Very Supportive – 13 Supportive – 5 Neutral – 1 Not Supportive – 3 Opposed - 0

17. Concerns/Issues • Component Level Display • Online Archive of California • search for “A. Bradley Brown” in John Muir Correspondence collection at Bancroft Library • Princeton University • Search for Aschkenasy in Albert Einstein papers

18. Issue: Component level display withFinding Aids that don’t have <dsc> • 54% of NWDA F.A. have a <dsc> • 95% of Utah’s F.A. have a <dsc> • Utah brings 3,800 docs making it over 62% of F.A. with <dsc> • 13,000 out of 21,000 • Yes, collection level finding aids will display - show OAC, • if F.A. doesn’t have a container list the collection is still visible

19. Issue: Google Search • For searches initiated within NWDA the goal is component level search results and display. • For searches initiated from a search engine the researcher will be delivered to the collection level • This is an area currently in development with no magic solution at this time.

20. Issue: Search for “known items” • Deliver a product that meets general search conventions and will deliver “known items” • Operate in a manner similar to what one would expect using a major search engine like Google or Bing

21. Issue:Retrospective Conversion, tagging, subject terms, etc. • Site redesign does not require retrospective conversion work as we see it now. • NWDA will need to figure out what the consortium will support centrally and what will fall to members. • As the profession goes forward with EAD 3.0 some retrospective conversion may be required.

22. Issue: Identity • Institution specific searches: Keith to provide numbers.

23. NWDA Brand • What are researchers searching?

24. Institutional identity and NWDA Brand49,391 visits Keyword not provided – 26.9% NWDA or full name – 1.58% All other keywords – 71.52%

25. Issue: Visual Browse • Tagging & retrospective conversion • Current browse use comprises 5% of total searches • Concede the way it’s currently implemented is not effective • Princeton sees it as a tool to engage undergraduate locally at institutions • Tied to browsing terms behind the scene • Some browsing needs can be addressed through faceting   • How much time do we need to invest in browsing terms since faceting will promote more discovery?

26. Discussion and Questions 2 Votes to Follow

27. Vote #1: Do you approve Specs Draft As Is

28. Vote #2: Members agree to participate in the redesign process: • In order to do the site revision in FY14/FY15 we’ll need to have the following from institutions: Committee members need to be willing to receive information from IUDWG and provide feedback. As committee members you are the voice of your institution. • Be willing to recruit your end users to participate in user studies that assist in the design and implementation with the understanding that we support this centrally. NWDA will conduct the tests and you’re encouraged to observe. Jodi will be providing an example of user studies in XCU presentation.